NationStates Jolt Archive

While I feel religious tolerance is of the utmost importance, I believe this resolution does little to actually protect the religious rights of the people. Not only that, but not all religions should be tolerated. Some religions are too extreme to be recognized as a religion and should therefore be defined as a cult. This issue is not recognized by resolution #19 because resolution #19 doesn't define religion. Therefore anything can be defined as a religion, but at the same time one could define nothing as a religion. Take for example the Violetist cult which has recently gained popularity. The Violetists wish to kill ordinary citizens in order to please their bloodthirsty goddess. Surely they don't deserve toleration in every nation! If a UN member chooses to tolerate them, that's different. Resolution #19 was passed before the Violetist cult gained popularity and therefore the author of resolution #19 had no way of knowing how to deal with issues such as the above example. I plan to repeal the above resolution, but would like as much input on what to put in the repeal and how it's replacement should be before I propose such a repeal.

The People's Republic of Opendia

You're right, a religion must be defined. Also, 'cult' must be defined as well.

Now that I know I'm not the only one who believes a repeal is in order I will begin working on a draft. It will be done by tonight or tomorrow. Once I've finished it I will post it and it will be open to suggestions. Until then try to help me gain support so that this repeal can go somewhere.

The People's Republic of Opendia

I am proud to reveal the first draft.

While recognizing the importance of religious tolerance, and respecting the attempt made by UN resolution #19 “Religious Tolerance” it has come to my attention that said resolution no longer provides adequate religious tolerance. This repeal defines a religion as a common spiritual gathering with large support that does not condone violence. This repeal also defines a cult as a common spiritual gathering which either lacks support, or does condone violence.

1. “Religious Tolerance” does not properly define religion and leaves it open to interpretation, making it almost impossible to guarantee religious freedom or
tolerance.

2. “Religious Tolerance” does not define religious tolerance or freedom, making it almost impossible to provide either.

3. The resolution mentioned above is very outdated and does not mention nor define cults, some of which have gained popularity as of late.

4. Although the resolution is listed as having significant strength it does nothing due to the above points, and the mild language used throughout the
resolution. Examples of the mild language used are in bold in the following quote, which was taken directly out of the resolution: “Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion." Just because one "opposes" religious wars and "promotes" religious tolerance, doesn't mean one must take action.

5. This proposal only opposes wars fought in the name of the Christian/Islamic/Jewish God, not other gods.

As seen in the above points, this resolution is no longer fit to govern religious tolerance, and as such it must be repealed.

Sounds good to me. My UN puppet will start advertising this repeal.

5. This proposal only opposes wars fought in the name of the Christian/Islamic/Jewish God, not other gods.

I'm curious as to why section 5 was added.

Fiore Acquerello
Deputy UN Ambassador

If you read the original document you'll notice god has a capital G making it God, which is the name of the Christian god God. In essence Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all have the same god. Also because religion isn't clearly defined it doesn't oppose wars fought over religion as defined in the repeal. I'm sure it was an accident but it's a major loophole.

The People's Republic of Opendia

This repeal defines a religion as a common spiritual gathering with large support that does not condone violence. This repeal also defines a cult as a common spiritual gathering which either lacks support, or does condone violence.


I'm not sure if it's legal to have definitions like this in a repeal, since you can't make any new legislation in a repeal, you can only strike the existing resolution.

I recommend deleting the above sentences and reworking section 3 to state that resolution 19 did not take into account the rise of spritual gatherings with condone violence. (or something along those lines)

I'm not sure if it's legal to have definitions like this in a repeal, since you can't make any new legislation in a repeal, you can only strike the existing resolution.

I recommend deleting the above sentences and reworking section 3 to state that resolution 19 did not take into account the rise of spritual gatherings with condone violence. (or something along those lines)

I'm not technically trying to make new legislation, I am just trying to explain what this repeal means when I say religion, however I will show you what the draft would look like to be safe.

Ok, this is it with the changes.
While recognizing the importance of religious tolerance, and respecting the attempt made by UN resolution #19 “Religious Tolerance” it has come to my attention that said resolution no longer provides adequate religious tolerance.

1. “Religious Tolerance” does not properly define religion and leaves it open to interpretation, making it almost impossible to guarantee religious freedom or
tolerance.

2. “Religious Tolerance” does not define religious tolerance or freedom, making it almost impossible to provide either.

3. The resolution mentioned above is very outdated and does not mention nor define cults, and therefore did not take into account spiritual gatherings which condone violence.

4. Although the resolution is listed as having significant strength it does nothing due to the above points, and the mild language used throughout the
resolution. Examples of the mild language used are in bold in the following quote, which was taken directly out of the resolution: “Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion." Just because one "opposes" religious wars and "promotes" religious tolerance, doesn't mean one must take action.

5. This proposal only opposes wars fought in the name of the Christian/Islamic/Jewish God, not other gods.

As seen in the above points, this resolution is no longer fit to govern religious tolerance, and as such it must be repealed.

The People's Republic of Opendia

We haven't had the chance yet to look carefully at NSUNR #19 and the arguments against it in your repeal draft, but here are a couple of thing to help get discussion rolling....

We think it's always a good idea to post the text of the resolution along with the repeal. Makes it easier for people to compare them. So here's NSUNR #19:

Religious Tolerance

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Athine

Description: Whereas, Freedom of Religion does not exist in all countries in the world. Whereas, Too many wars are started and fought because of religious differences.

Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion.

Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion.

Votes For: 12297

Votes Against: 3380

Implemented: Sat Jun 21 2003

Now for suggestions....

Ditch the first paragraph. If the resolution doesn't do the job now, it never did, and nobody cares about your attention. ;) Just say it doesn't do the job adequately (in more high-toned language, of course).

Since the operative clauses of the resolution don't mention "freedom", you can't complain that it's undefined. That doesn't matter. We'd just stick to the charge that the whole language of the resolution is vague and doesn't really do anything.

Forget the business about the thing being outdated. It's not the age that's the problem, its the vagueness.

You need to get more detailed about the cult problem. You might say that its vagueness could inhibit countermeasures to cult violence, or something like that.

The argument in 5 is valid, but needs to be explained in the repeal. Avoid mentioning specific religions. That can only raise hackles. "By using the term 'God', the resolution limits itself to monotheistic religions which use that specific name for their deity" -- or something.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thanks for the suggestions Ambassador Ahlmann, does this work better?

While recognizing the importance of religious tolerance, and respecting the attempt made by UN resolution #19 “Religious Tolerance” it is obvious that does not adequately provide religious tolerance.

1. “Religious Tolerance” does not properly define religion and leaves it open to interpretation, making it almost impossible to guarantee religious tolerance or freedom.

2. “Religious Tolerance” does not define religious tolerance, making it almost impossible to provide true religious tolerance.

3. The resolution mentioned above is too vague and does not mention nor define cults, and therefore did not take into account spiritual gatherings which condone violence. This resolution could inhibit nations from using various counter measures to prevent cult violence.

4. Although the resolution is listed as having significant strength it does nothing due to the above points, and the mild language used throughout the
resolution. Examples of the mild language used are in bold in the following quote, which was taken directly out of the resolution: “Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion." Just because one "opposes" religious wars and "promotes" religious tolerance, doesn't mean one must take action.

5. Because this proposal uses a capital "G" it only opposes wars fought in the name of certain monotheistic religions that use the name "God" to describe their deity.

As seen in the above points, this resolution is clearly too vague to properly govern religious tolerance, and as such it must be repealed.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Examples of the mild language used are in bold in the following quote, which was taken directly out of the resolutionBBCode doesn't work in Proposals.

4. Although the resolution is listed as having significant strength it does nothing due to the above points, and the mild language used throughout the
resolution. Examples of the mild language used are in bold in the following quote, which was taken directly out of the resolution: “Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion." Just because one "opposes" religious wars and "promotes" religious tolerance, doesn't mean one must take action.This is Metagaming. A proposal's legality, category and strength are irrelevant to any repeal argument made against it. If it passed the General Assembly, even if it doesn't comport with the ruleset we have in place now, it is assumed to be legal.

Ok, I can fix the bold problem by making the letters all caps.

While recognizing the importance of religious tolerance, and respecting the attempt made by UN resolution #19 “Religious Tolerance” it is obvious that it does not adequately provide religious tolerance.

1. “Religious Tolerance” does not properly define religion and leaves it open to interpretation, making it almost impossible to guarantee religious tolerance or freedom.

2. “Religious Tolerance” does not define religious tolerance, making it almost impossible to provide true religious tolerance.

3. The resolution mentioned above is too vague and does not mention nor define cults, and therefore did not take into account spiritual gatherings which condone violence. This resolution could inhibit nations from using various counter measures to prevent cult violence.

4. Although the resolution is listed as having significant strength it does nothing due to the above points, and the mild language used throughout the
resolution. Examples of the mild language used are in all capital letters in the following quote, which was taken directly out of the resolution: “Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations SUPPORT and PROMOTE a greater understanding of all religions and PROMOTE more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations OPPOSES all wars fought in the name of God and religion." Just because one "opposes" religious wars and "promotes" religious tolerance, doesn't mean one must take action.

5. Because this proposal uses a capital "G" it only opposes wars fought in the name of certain monotheistic religions that use the name "God" to describe their deity.

As seen in the above points, this resolution is clearly too vague to properly govern religious tolerance, and as such it must be repealed.

And I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just wondering why no one else told me that was metagaming. Although the more I look at it, the more it looks like metagaming. Ok this should do if it is metagaming.

While recognizing the importance of religious tolerance, and respecting the attempt made by UN resolution #19 “Religious Tolerance” it is obvious that it does not adequately provide religious tolerance.

1. “Religious Tolerance” does not properly define religion and leaves it open to interpretation, making it almost impossible to guarantee religious tolerance or freedom.

2. “Religious Tolerance” does not define religious tolerance, making it almost impossible to provide true religious tolerance.

3. The resolution mentioned above is too vague and does not mention nor define cults, and therefore did not take into account spiritual gatherings which condone violence. This resolution could inhibit nations from using various counter measures to prevent cult violence.

4. This resolution has little effect due to the incredibly vague and mild language used throughout the effective clause. Examples of the mild language used are in all capital letters in the following quote, which was taken directly out of the resolution: “Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations SUPPORT and PROMOTE a greater understanding of all religions and PROMOTE more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations OPPOSES all wars fought in the name of God and religion." Just because one "opposes" religious wars and "promotes" religious tolerance, doesn't mean one must take action.

5. Because this proposal uses a capital "G" it only opposes wars fought in the name of certain monotheistic religions that use the name "God" to describe their deity.

As seen in the above points, this resolution is clearly too vague to properly govern religious tolerance, and as such it must be repealed.

I don't know I kind of like the second one better anyway.

The People's Republic of Opendia

Merely a thought, but perhaps we should also consider drafting a replacement to Resolution #19 at the same time so the two can be debated and passed or defeated in quick succession. I realise #19 carries little force but our tiny nation contains many small feuding minority religious groups, who could be emboldened by the apparent vaccuum left by the removal of this resolution. We fear chaos if alternative legislation is not put into effect promptly.

Ambassador Jandek Sladgrov
The People's Republic of Staffsilvania

Merely a thought, but perhaps we should also consider drafting a replacement to Resolution #19 at the same time so the two can be debated and passed or defeated in quick succession. I realise #19 carries little force but our tiny nation contains many small feuding minority religious groups, who could be emboldened by the apparent vaccuum left by the removal of this resolution. We fear chaos if alternative legislation is not put into effect promptly.

Ambassador Jandek Sladgrov
The People's Republic of Staffsilvania


"Is there any reason why you couldn't have a suitable piece of national legislation on this matter ready to bring in if and when this repeal gets passed, instead of relying on the UN to handle the situation?"

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassdor to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this blasted penguin costume...)

I would prefer if section 5 was changed to something like this:

5. This proposal opposes all wars fought in the name of religion.

After all, the horrors from a war started by a polytheistic theocracy can easily be just as bad as those committed by a monotheistic one.

-- DragonAtma (via videophone)
King of South Lorenya

I will never vote for a repeal of Religious Tolerance that is not written in sonnet form.

I would prefer if section 5 was changed to something like this:

5. This proposal opposes all wars fought in the name of religion.

After all, the horrors from a war started by a polytheistic theocracy can easily be just as bad as those committed by a monotheistic one.

-- DragonAtma (via videophone)
King of South Lorenya

That's true, but that is actually a point against the resolution we are trying to repeal. It is illegal to propose new things in a repeal. Maybe it will be less confusing if I phrase it like this...

5. Because proposal #19 uses a capital "G" it only opposes wars fought in the name of certain monotheistic religions that use the name "God" to describe their deity.

Is that better?

The People's Republic of Opendia

Merely a thought, but perhaps we should also consider drafting a replacement to Resolution #19 at the same time so the two can be debated and passed or defeated in quick succession. I realise #19 carries little force but our tiny nation contains many small feuding minority religious groups, who could be emboldened by the apparent vaccuum left by the removal of this resolution. We fear chaos if alternative legislation is not put into effect promptly.

Ambassador Jandek Sladgrov
The People's Republic of Staffsilvania

I don't think we should start on a replacement without finishing what we've started. And until then you could fix the problem with national legislation. Besides, Resolution #19 doesn't really do anything so you shouldn't have any problems when it's gone. However I will draft a replacement before this repeal is passed. If anyone has a problem with that please contact me.

The People's Republic of Opendia

I will never vote for a repeal of Religious Tolerance that is not written in sonnet form.

Do you want it to be Shakespearian or Petrarchan? And should it be written in Iambic pentameter? Because I don't really feel like writing a sonnet.

The People's Republic of Opendia

...would you compromise on a haiku, Gruenberg?

Tolerance is good,
But Hindus with Carte Blanche
Is going too far.

(apologies to any hindus who read this, but haikus are severely limited...)

And yes, Opendia, I know that you can;t simply amend a resolution (and I'm not about to ask the mods for an "amend resolution without changing category/strength" feature), but the rules say nothign about striking out the current resolution and passing a new one that's only slightly edited

I haven't come up with a replacement resolution yet, but rest assured that it will cover wars fought over both mono and polytheistic gods.

The People's Republic of Opendia